whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Content Marketing

Acrolinx

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Acrolinx GmbH · acrolinx.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Acrolinx: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Acrolinx: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Acrolinx at a glance

Vendor
Acrolinx GmbH
Headquarters
Incorporated in United States source, captured 3 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Acrolinx 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Acrolinx, now Markup AI, scores as a content governance layer rather than a content platform: digitized style guides, terminology and Content Guardian Agents checking content inside the authoring tools teams already use. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources

Acrolinx alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Signs off every tool that stores the company's drafts, author profiles and campaign data. Wants the contracting entity and hosting region named, the subprocessor list with the AI providers on it, prompt retention in days, and training on customer content excluded in the terms rather than in a blog post.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Data Protection Officer
Planning, editorial calendar & briefs 0 of 5 0 of 5
Creation, review & approval 2 of 5 2 of 5
Structured content, localisation & export 2 of 5 2 of 5
Publishing, distribution & integrations 3 of 5 3 of 5
AI assistance & content rights 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5

Planning, editorial calendar & briefs

How this is scored

Turning a content strategy into scheduled work: topics and campaigns, an editorial calendar across channels, briefs that carry the goal, audience and keywords to the writer, and a view of what is due, late or missing.

0 — No planning at all; the product only stores or renders content.

3 — A calendar or list view of content with publish dates and statuses.

5 — An editorial calendar across channels with owners, due dates and custom statuses, and content grouped by campaign, topic or channel.

8 — Strategy connected to the plan: briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords attached to each piece, topics or personas defined once and assigned to pieces, configurable workflows per content type, workload and deadline views per person, and recurring formats scheduled as series.

10 — The plan is accountable: every published piece traces back to its brief, topic and campaign, gaps in coverage per topic or funnel stage are reported, and plan-versus-published is visible over time without a spreadsheet.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The captured pages present a content-governance platform — digitized style guides, terminology, quality gates and Content Guardian Agents running inside existing authoring tools — which is a different class of product from a planning tool. We found no editorial calendar, brief, campaign, owner, due-date or workload view anywhere in the material. 1 7

Report an error

Creation, review & approval

How this is scored

Writing and reviewing content together: editing with comments and suggestions, roles and permissions for internal and external contributors, and an approval trail that records who released which version — published content is a legal statement (UWG, Heilmittelwerbegesetz, the imprint duty).

0 — A single-user tool; content cannot be shared with or reviewed by others.

3 — Several users working on content, with comments or a version history.

5 — Roles and permissions that separate writing from publishing, comments on content, a version history with restore, and an approval or review status before publishing.

8 — Configurable multi-step approval per content type or market, mandatory reviewers (legal, product, brand), inline suggested edits, guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, scheduled publishing that waits for approval, and an audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp.

10 — Approval is evidence: the exact version each approver released is preserved and exportable, permissions reach down to field and locale level, and the audit trail is retained for a stated period and available after the contract ends.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Documented roles (Writer, Administrator on Starter and Business) and fine-grained permission groups on Enterprise, with the last administrator protected and permission changes taking effect at next sign-in, plus deterministic quality gates that can block content before it publishes. What I need as the officer signing off on release trails is not on the pages: no comments, no version history with restore, no human approval step with named approvers, and no audit log recording who released which version. An automated scoring gate is not an approval trail. 4 1 7

Report an error

Structured content, localisation & export

How this is scored

Whether content is stored as reusable structure rather than pages: a content model, components shared across channels, German and other locales managed side by side, and the whole repository exportable in a documented format.

0 — Not a content store; the product keeps no content of its own (for example a pure scheduling or analytics tool).

3 — Templates or custom fields for content, a media library, and content in several languages.

5 — A configurable content model or content types with reusable components, locales managed side by side for each entry, and an export of entries in JSON, CSV, XML or a similar documented format.

8 — References between entries, field-level localisation with fallback languages, variants per market or audience, translation workflows with status per locale and named translation-service connectors, and a full export of content, model, locales and assets documented and self-service.

10 — The repository is portable by design: model and content exportable together and re-importable, migration tooling or a CLI documented in both directions, version history included in the export, and no feature that only works while the content stays.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The platform's own structured asset — terminology — is portable through a documented API: a CSV of all term sets, terms and domains in the same format as the import, and an Acrolinx-compatible XML dump that can be posted back in. That is genuine, self-service, two-way portability for the terminology store. The product is otherwise a checking layer over content held in AEM, SharePoint or GitHub, and we found no content model, reusable components or locale management for the customer's content itself. 5 6 1

Report an error

Publishing, distribution & integrations

How this is scored

Getting approved content to where it is read: publishing to websites and channels, a documented API and webhooks, and named connections to the CMS, CRM, analytics, SEO and translation tools a marketing stack already runs.

0 — A closed tool; content leaves only by copy and paste.

3 — Publishing to one website or CMS, and a few named integrations.

5 — Publishing to websites and several channels from one place, a publicly documented API or webhooks, and integrations named for common CMS, CRM or analytics tools.

8 — A versioned API with published rate limits and SDKs, webhooks on publish and change, preview environments, a marketplace or integration directory with maintained connectors, performance data per piece pulled back from analytics, and a public status page.

10 — The platform is a dependable source for every channel: API deprecation policy published, CDN and delivery SLA stated, scheduled and event-driven publishing documented end to end, and content performance attributed per channel without a separate tool.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A versioned, publicly documented API with a Quickstart and full API Reference, managed keys with masked previews and zero-downtime rotation, and named connectors to AEM, Salesforce, SharePoint Online and GitHub, plus Zapier, a GitHub Action and an MCP integration, with quality gates wired into publishing workflows and quality tied to performance in the analytics. We found no published rate limits, SDKs, webhooks or status page. 7 8 1

Report an error

AI assistance & content rights

How this is scored

What the platform's AI does with the customer's content and what the customer may do with the AI's: the models and where they run, whether content trains them, opt-out, labelling of generated text under the EU AI Act, and who holds the rights to output.

0 — The vendor states that customer content trains its models with no opt-out, or reserves the rights to AI output for itself.

3 — AI writing features described with what they do, and a general statement on how content is handled by them.

5 — The AI model provider named, a statement that customer content does not train models, and AI features that an admin can switch off.

8 — Model providers listed as subprocessors, EU processing for AI features stated or selectable, retention of prompts and outputs given in days, ownership of generated output assigned to the customer in the terms, generated content markable for EU AI Act transparency, and brand voice or terminology rules applied without training a shared model.

10 — AI is governed and documented: per-feature list of model, provider and processing location, admin controls per role and content type, an audit trail of AI-generated changes, and the output rights and any indemnity written into the contract terms.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The AI infrastructure is named as Azure, the vendor states user data and activity is "never shared with public models or used to train external AI models", and agents are enabled at organization level by administrators — the switch-off control I look for. Two caveats from my desk: the no-training wording excludes external models only, and it sits on product pages rather than in terms; we found no retention period in days for prompts and outputs, no stated processing location for AI, no EU AI Act marking of generated text, and no assignment of output rights to the customer. 9 1 4

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity is, where content, assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-European.

0 — Vendor, contracting entity and hosting all shown to be outside the EU, with no data processing agreement offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement offered, with hosting or the contracting entity outside the EU or not established.

5 — EU hosting stated for content and assets, with a data processing agreement offered.

8 — EU contracting entity, content, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, CDN, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A privacy policy exists, processing of customers' personal data is stated to follow Article 28 GDPR under DPO oversight, and ISO 27001 and 27701 certificates are published with the audit firm named. But the residency facts I require before sign-off are not established: hosting is AWS, Rackspace and Azure with no region stated, the responsible-entity picture is mixed (a US website owner, a Berlin-registered parent, and Acrolinx GmbH named on the enterprise page), and the security subprocessors CrowdStrike and Crashtest Security are named with purposes but without locations. Without a stated EU hosting region I cannot establish where our content, assets and prompts would sit. 2 3 9

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team, locales and traffic from public pages alone — seats and contributor roles, locales, content records, API calls and bandwidth, AI credits, and the plan where approval workflows or SSO begin.

0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.

3 — A public "from" price, a free tier, or one priced plan, with the rest on request.

5 — Prices for each plan public with the billing period (per month or per year) and the seats or main limits each includes.

8 — Every plan priced with seats, locales, records, API and bandwidth limits and overage rates stated, AI usage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks approval workflows, SSO and audit logs named.

10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given team, locale count and traffic, every add-on and overage priced publicly, contract term and renewal conditions stated, and the cost of exporting or leaving the platform zero or published.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The documentation names Starter, Business and Enterprise plans, and Enterprise capabilities are enabled by "talking to your account team". We found no price figure, billing period, seat count or usage limit on any captured page, so no annual cost can be computed from the public material. 4

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Acrolinx

Is Acrolinx European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Acrolinx is based. Its vendor, Acrolinx GmbH, is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.

Where does Acrolinx store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

Does Acrolinx have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Acrolinx?

As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates StoryChief (3/5), Kontent.ai (3/5) and Scompler (3/5) highest among the other 23 Content Marketing products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is StoryChief (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Acrolinx alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Acrolinx? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (9)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap docs.markup.ai Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap www.acrolinx.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →